Hallas

Our entire bullpen is a low bar.

There was a play I posted earlier where Kieboom dodged the runner but the runner was still out for interference.

I'm pretty sure that the fielder right of away rule also exists as a safety thing because permitting collisions with players that aren't expecting them because they're focused on fielding a batted ball wouldn't be good for player safety. Also I'm uncertain how the outcome can possibly matter, because the play is dead as soon as interference is called, which means that the umpire cannot know ahead of time that the fielder is able to make the play in spite of the interference. On the infield fly video, the outcome couldn't have been affected at all, because the infield fly rule was in effect.

Are you looking for an infield fly runner's interference? Because as far as I know, it's been 12 years since this exact situation was called. This is the play that caused the rule to be changed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJu3RL8CV_8 They let the runner bat again and called the 1st base runner out in this case, and then in the offseason clarified the rule to say that both the runner and the batter are out. But in this case the runner's interference was fairly substantial direct contact. If you're talking about runners interference in general, on this play Kieboom didn't touch the runner and it was called runner's interference. https://www.mlb.com/video/yadier-molina-grounds-into-a-force-out-fielded-by-shortstop-carter-kieboom-marcell-ozuna-out-at-3rd-jose-martinez-to-2nd-yadier-molina-to-1st?q=5%2F1%2F2019 stl vs was&cp=CMS_FIRST&qt=FREETEXT&p=3 The outcome of the play shouldn't really matter. If you commit a face mask in football, and the guy whose face mask you grabbed gets a sack-fumble and recovers, you still get the ball and you get 15 yards.

Yes, if it were up to me, I would change the rules so that on an infield fly with interference called, the ball is dead and the runners go back to their original base. So Vaughn would be at 2nd, and whoever was at 1st would stay there. Not because he wasn't trying to advance, but because the play needs to be called dead due to runner's interference and it doesn't feel fair to call him out for that, when the fielder doesn't really need to field the ball to make an out.

By current rules? It's clear runner's interference, and the rule explicitly says that runners interference on an infield fly is a double play, with both the batter and the offending runner out. Does that rule suck? Yeah, kind of. I'd be in favor of calling the ball dead on runner's interference on an infield fly, and just telling the runners to go back to their starting base.

The way the rule has been applied, contact in any shape or form constitutes "hindered" and you can interfere even if the runner doesn't make contact; merely forcing the fielder to go around you is runner's interference.

The ball is technically live after an infield fly so the ball would need to be dead if interference is called. The typical penalty for interference is supposed to be that the runner is out, and they changed the rules in 2013 to explicitly say that both the batter and runner are out if interference is called on an infield fly, because this happened in 2012 and it took the umpires 20 minutes to decide the outcome. Now that it's happened again... it kind of does feel wrong.... called correctly but kind of a tough way to lose if I'm a WS fan.

I don't understand your question? edit: i meant "the batter is out anyway" my bad

I really don't think it's trash to call interference. Gunnar took a fairly direct path to the ball and the runner got in his way. That's like a textbook interference call. I'm pretty sympathatic to the idea that the penalty for that shouldn't be a double play. The rule is explicit in saying that this should be, but it does feel wrong. The batter is out anyway, so there's no need to field the ball. Just call the play dead and tell the runners to go back to their original base.

The rule is explicit, and this was called correctly. This was clear interference, and impact on the play doesn't (and shouldn't) matter. It does feel a little overly punitive. The counter-argument to that is that, the WS did 2 separate, unrelated things wrong on this play, so it makes sense to penalize them for both. Maybe the rule should be, if you interfere and infield fly is called, the ball is dead and runners have to go back to their previous bag? But I get why the rule exists too, you don't want to allow any reason to incentivize interfering with the fielder.

The rule says you don't even have to make contact, if you even force the fielder to go around you it's interference. In this case Vaughn actually touched Gunnar so it seems pretty clear cut.

There's an explicit rule for this scenario.

Vaughn (runner at 2nd) kind of made contact with Gunnar on his way back to the bag.

I think they called the runner on 2nd out for interfering with Gunnar when he was tracking the ball. And then HP called infield fly, so it was a double play on an infield fly rule.